miércoles, 18 de noviembre de 2015

Do we have to discriminate against our own

language in order to learn another?

By Enrique Rojas

Everything we
learn, we learn it through our language and everything we know we reflect it
and express it through our language. Then it may we valid to ask: is it logical
to expect that people should learn a foreign tongue without using their own
language in the process?

The idea that a
foreign language must be taught and learned without resorting to the mother
tongue to accomplish it is quite widespread. In fact, it has prevailed without
major contention for a considerable period. But in recent times it has come
under severe questioning. And there is not conclusive research to demonstrate
that students who are only spoken in L2 (the target language) and are compelled
not to use their L1 (native tongue) achieve better results in their learning
than those who are subject to a rational combination of L1 and L2.

BABY THROWN OUT WITH THE BATH WATER

Let’s examine some
of the reasons why this allergy of the native language developed in the foreign
language classroom. In the first place, the Grammar Translation method used
solely the native language as the vehicle of instruction. True. Not very efficient.
To this, the Direct Method, called also Natural Method, counteracted refraining
to use the learners’ native language and using only the target language. In
general, it intended teaching focusing in the development of oral skills
(sounds familiar?). To help in that aim, they resorted to teaching concepts and
vocabulary through pantomiming, realia and other visual materials. Another
characteristic was that students should be speaking 80% of the time during the
lesson. It can be observed that the methods of today are then not that modern
at all.

Audiolingualism
became popular in the 60’s, practically as an offspring of the Direct Method,
Structural linguistics and the Behaviorist theory in Psychology. In this method
the teacher was just occasionally permitted to use L1 but students had to use
exclusively L2.

After this method
was discredited, in the 80’s and 90’s, the Communicative Approach began to
exist. In the beginning the no L1 use norm in instruction was adopted, but in
the long years that it has been in use, many prominent linguists have raised
their voices questioning the across-the-board use of this practice.

The success of the
immersion method was another factor that counted in the obliteration of L1.
Schools that adopted the method of switching completely to the target language
eventually showed remarkable success. It should be noticed that they were
mostly boarding schools. Also there are many stories of students going to live
for a period in a foreign speaking country and returning home fluent in that
language. Many schools tried to recreate that, but the problem is that they
couldn’t transport the institution to another environment.

DEVALUING OUR OWN LANGUAGE?

It is also worthy
of reflection the attitude of the great editorial houses producing textbooks
for language learning. These establishments have nowadays a decisive say in the
way languages are taught. But their main concern is commercial. They actively
support the idea of using only the target language. In this way they may
produce books which they can sell all over the world, without any consideration
to the local language.

Another point of
view that supports this train of thought is Steve Krashen’s Input Theory. He
says that the manner to learn another language is by being exposed to it. There’s
no denial to this. But is it the only way?

The mother language
is something that constitutes part of our personality, the way we are, the way
we conceive the world, the manner we have assimilated our own culture.
Goldstein (2003) discovered that in situations where students were not
permitted to use their own language, even in private spaces, and punishments
were applied for using the mother tongue, the results were that students
refrained from speaking; when they did, they used their own tongue quietly and
felt a sense of shame. He contended that “learning another language should add
richness to students’ lives; it should not devalue their own language and
culture.” She also points out that students should get the sense that learning
another language is a positive experience because they can have access to a
valuable resource that adds to their personal worth rather than a source of
shame and suffering.

My language is me

One more thing to
consider is that we have developed a lot of time and effort to learn the
linguistic scaffold of our own language. Why shouldn’t we take advantage of
this knowledge to compare and notice what is similar and what is different in
the target language, to learn by parallelism and contrast? Why should we have
to tread again the whole trail that we followed as children to learn our first
language? Why not better use the knowledge we have of our own language as a
springboard to learn another?

Of course, it is
imperative to avoid an excessive dependence in the students’ mother tongue by
both teacher and students because pupils would lose confidence of their ability
to communicate in English. It is evident that using the L2 in class is
essential to improve their language skills. (Harbord, 1992). Furthermore, it
shouldn’t be forgotten that it is not possible to learn a language without
becoming familiar with the culture that originates it.

wrapping up

In sum, absolute
prohibition of L1 across the board in the foreign language classroom seems
neither justified nor practical. Much more research about the subject needs to
be done and the issue must be discussed further. Extreme decisions are rarely
sustainable solutions.

References:

Atkinson, David. The mother tongue in the
classroom: a neglected resource?
http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/4/241.abstract

Ferrer, Vincent. The mother tongue in the
classroom:
http://www.indabook.org/preview/qWQdAhAqs31iASH8qoykJ9v_c5Lm8MS6L_JUw6rhtcA,/THE-MOTHER-TONGUE-IN-THE-CLASSROOM-cross.html?query=Mother-Languages

BiodataEnrique Rojas. Graduated in
Journalism at the PUCP, Peru, Enrique Rojas R. holds a MA in Journalism and MA
in Inter American History from Southern Illinois University, USA; an MA in
Literature from University of the Americas, Puebla, Mexico, all the coursework
for a MA in TEFL at Universidad de Piura, Peru and BA in Education from
Universidad Federico Villarreal. He has also obtained Certificates of
Proficiency in English both from Cambridge University and the University of
Michigan and the Diploma for EFL Teachers from Universidad del Pacifico. He is
an Oral Examiner for the Cambridge University exams and has been awarded the
title Expert in E-Learning from Asociacion Educativa del Mediterraneo and
Universidad Marcelino Champagnat. He has worked as a professor in universities
in Peru, Mexico and the United States; as a newscaster and a producer in radio
and television stations in the United States and Mexico, and as a writer and
editor in daily newspapers of the same countries. He has been in the staff of CIDUP
for 17 years teaching English and Spanish specializing in International Exams,
English for Business, ESP and Teacher Training. He is a member of the Research
Area of Centro de Idiomas de la UP.